TO: Franklin Conservation Commission
FM: George Russell, AICP
Conservation Agent
RE: Agent’s Report
DATE: Sept. 13, 2016
1.0. Projects
1.1. Best Development Practices: In your last packet was the latest permutation of this document which was being given to the Commission for review and comment. The book has been dramatically revised and the plant listings updated since the originally listing 10 years ago. It should also be noted that the section on low impact development (LID) is new. Both 310 CMR 10.00 and the local by-law, Chapter 181, reference LID as being preferred and/or required in certain circumstances.
This hearing is a “formal” step to gather input prior to adoption. After that hearing, a recommendation will be sent to the Planning Board so that they can see, after their review of the guidebook, if there are any areas of conflict. After both land use bodies agree on the language and content, it will be formally adopted by both.
1.2. 20 Liberty Way NOI: The applicant’s representative is of the opinion that the Conservation Commission has no jurisdiction in this development. I would submit that the jurisdiction does exist under section 181-2 B of the local by-law in that there is a freshwater wetlands, a detention basin, within 50 feet of the project. The “missing” information has been submitted.
However, I take exception to the fourth bullet in the 8/30/16 letter from the project engineer in that whether the existing wetland is natural or manmade, it is still a wetland and therefore becomes a “protected wetland” under the local by-law.
I would recommend the following stipulations be attached to any approval: 20, 22, 23, 24, 27-30, 34, 35, 38 & 44.
2.0. General Business
2.1. Minor buffer Zone Activities
2.1.1 1 Peters Lane: This item has been continued for two meetings given that no one has been able to present the application and the Commission has decline to move forward on an application “in absentia”. This is for the removal of a two trees at the very edge of the 100’ buffer and I do not see the need for any mitigation.
2.1.2 4 Addison: A site inspection revealed that there is a dead pine tree and two partially removed trees that in conversation with the applicant are going to be removed. I suggested that an amended narrative submitted which was done and will be presented at the meeting. The two partially removed trees may be at the very edge of the buffer but I suggested the applicant include these as well. There are no other issues with the MBZA and I would recommend approval.
2.1.3. 62 Palomino: This is for the removal of a two trees at the very edge of the 100’ buffer and I do not see the need for any mitigation, even though the trees are very large and tall.
2.2 Permit modifications/extensions
2.2.1 137 Mastro: This permit will expire in March and under the local by-law, an extension can be granted for only 1 year.
2.2.2. 438 West Central Street: The applicant has informed me that no more work will be taking place in site and they will be submitting a request for a COC. However, a new fence has been erected on site in the 25’ buffer to replace an old fence. (See the letter in your packet.) The applicant has thus requested amendments to the NOI for the fence and the as-built requirements.
I do not think these two amendment requests rise to the level of a new NOI.
2.2.3. 31 Hayward Street: The work for this modification is complete and due to the somewhat emergency nature of the work, I authorized the work to proceed on the condition that a modification to the existing NOI is obtained from the Commission. This is the first step in the process and I would recommend an amendment is in order vis-à-vis a new NOI.
2.2.4. Franklin Hts.: This item was on the last agenda but there was on one present to discuss the issue. In your last packet was a series of letters dating back a little over a year. These letters indicate a history of problems and issues with this site and are being included only to show the Commission that not all has been “smooth” with this development. To further illustrate this, there is a total water ban in place in town and the new lawns for the new units are being, and have been watered for days.
I have inspected the site and I do not see the trees as being an immediate threat to the residences or the residents. If the Commission agrees, the removal would not meet the criteria established by the Commission for an MBZA on an existing NOI. I believe an NOI amendment is in order.
2.3. Certificate of Compliance
2.3.1. None
2.4. Discussion items
2.4.1. Declare: In you packet is a photograph taken by Mike Perrin showing the evidence of fish being caught and then cleaned at Declare. In order to help prevent his, the Commission may want to consider a policy of “catch and release” for fishing in Declare. I have checked with the town attorney and reviewed the deed and it is within the Commission’s prerogative to adopt this policy and have signs posted to this affect.
Also, at the request of the Chair, the overall appearance of the area is up for discussion.
In terms of this discussion, I think it would best if we could come up with exactly we would like to do in terms of maintaining the positive appearance of the area, e.g. vegetation pruning, trash pick-up, trail maintenance and just as importantly, why we do not want done, e.g. tree removal. I could then ask DPW/P&R for help in developing an annual cost estimate for maintenance. Once we have this figure, we could look at potential sources of funding, e.g. a budget line item, and see if we could get a landscape contractor on board to do the work.
The Commission has requested that maps of Declare be posted on line. We have put the Guidebook developed by Mike Perrin on the Commission’s webpage and the maps are in the book.
2.4.2. Advertising fees: We currently charge an applicant a fee of $100 for the legal advertising for a public hearing notice for an NOI etc. This fee was established by the Commission many years ago. In FY 2016, we spent $6,212.11 on advertising for a total of 56 public hearings, including NOIs, ANRADs, NOI Amendments and RDAs. The math would indicate that we are in fact spending an average of $110.93/legal ad.
In light of this, I believe the Commission should vote to raise the advertising fee to $110 effective for a permit requiring a legal ad after October 11, 2016 which is the cut-off date for the 10/27/16 meeting. This will give us time to “get the word out” for the new fee and to amend the in-house application forms etc. No public hearing would be required to do this.
2.4.3. Remote Protocol: I have included in your packets information on the protocol adopted by the town in the event a member wishes to participate in a meeting but cannot be physically present. No action is required, but there is a very specific process should this be utilized. I would need a couple of days’ notice if this were to be used so that I could make sure all of the equipment was in place.
2.5. Minutes
2.6. Violations:
2.6.1. 23 Longfellow: I have met with the attorney for the land owner and the issues have been resolved. There is a discrepancy between the documents sent to the land owner and the one in the file and the originally signed RDA that was sent to the property owner is controlling.
There is a title issue with the property and when that is worked out, a NOI for development will be filed.
I will answer any questions the members may have at the meeting.
3.0. Chair and Commission Comments
4.0. EXECUTIVE SESSION
| 
